nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) (04/11/89)
From: Peter Nelson <nelson_p@apollo.com> >> 1) yes, fission plants will probably be more weight and size efficient >> ; that's why I recommended them for cruisers and carriers ; you >> only want the fusion plant because it eliminates the need to >> depend upon potentially difficult to supply enriched uranium and >> oil ; if you only have a few large surface ships using fission >> power, you have no uranium supply problem.....so stick with >> fission for CVNs and CGNs. Fusion is the obvious choice for the >> more numerous classes of surface ships (DDs/FFs), though. > >The Navy would love to power its DDs/FFs with nuclear power TODAY, but >they are having problems manning nuclear powered ships as it is with >the expertise that is necessary. They don't want to add to the problem. >A nuclear powered escort complements the CVNs and CGNs and frees them >from the logistics of tankering large amounts of fuel oil (or diesel) >for these ships. Do fission-powered vessels present any particular problems in a combat situation? That is, if they are hit, hulled, catch-fire, etc, do they present any unique hazards by virtue of having radioactive fuel? Is there any danger of leakage of radioactive material, con- tamination of the crew, 'melt-down', etc? I am not very familiar with the technology involved so if this is a stupid question, break it to me gently. Thank you. --Peter [mod.note: I should think that fusion plants would, by and large, be less dangerous when hit. If the reactor is hit, the worst that could happen is the release of superheated heavy water steam [am I correct to guess that said would be much less radioactive and toxic than uranium compounds and reaction products from a fission plant ? ] The described fusion plant can't melt down, that's a fission phenomenon. On the other hand, it seems that it might be much more difficult to repair a fusion plant at sea; at least, considering that the loss of, say, an electrical switchboard or breaker panel could shut down the plant, and it could be 10 hrs plus to get the reactor back on line. - Bill ]
royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom) (04/15/89)
From: royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom) In article <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) writes: >> >>The Navy would love to power its DDs/FFs with nuclear power TODAY, but >>they are having problems manning nuclear powered ships as it is with >>the expertise that is necessary. They don't want to add to the problem. This was one of Rickover's biggest complaints. He believed that high school science and math were inadequate. Most of the nukes I worked with were college dropouts. {Many of us did go back,though!} >>A nuclear powered escort complements the CVNs and CGNs and frees them >>from the logistics of tankering large amounts of fuel oil (or diesel) >>for these ships. The Nimitz/California/Texas?/attack sub task force that sailed around Africa for the Gulf of Oman from Italy in Jan 1980 did it in 18 days at flank speed the entire trip. > Do fission-powered vessels present any particular problems in > a combat situation? That is, if they are hit, hulled, catch-fire, > etc, do they present any unique hazards by virtue of having radioactive > fuel? Is there any danger of leakage of radioactive material, con- > tamination of the crew, 'melt-down', etc? I am not very familiar > with the technology involved so if this is a stupid question, break > it to me gently. Thank you. Of course, there were hazards. But, the reactors on the California were well shielded, and I believed quite secure until the Falklands episode proved otherwise. The reactor compartment was designed to keep radiation inside, no coolant left the compartment as steam was made with steam generators (heat exchangers). The ventilation system was designed to shutdown and close up at the slightest overpressure. No digital computers were used in the operation of the power plant for reliability in the harsh environment. Humans are better able to reconfigure in the event of an emergency, anyway. There were strict rules on operation of the plant, but the captain could override any of them for the safety of the ship or to meet the ship's mission. My biggest worry, as reactor operator, was what might happen {politically} if an accident occurred while anchored in a foreign harbor. In the late 70's we were not permitted in France, Sweden, the Suez Canal and of course New Zealand, among others. In Spain, we had to keep one reactor operating and have another ship, a DD, in port with a powerplant in short standby to tow us out to sea if necessary. The same precautions were used when we visited the Naval Academy, if I remember correctly. >[mod.note: I should think that fusion plants would, by and large, >be less dangerous when hit. If the reactor is hit, the worst that >could happen is the release of superheated heavy water steam [am I I am surprised at the interest in fusion power for these ships. I believe it is still many, many years away. A good short term alternative could be the Sterling engine the Swede's are using in their new sub design. [mod.note: I'm not familiar with this. Care to elaborate ? - Bill ] Roy Forsstrom Public Works Computer Center royf@pwcs.StPaul.GOV St. Paul, MN 55102
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (05/05/89)
From: rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie In article <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM>, nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) writes: > Do fission-powered vessels present any particular problems in > a combat situation? That is, if they are hit, hulled, catch-fire, > etc, do they present any unique hazards by virtue of having radioactive > fuel? Is there any danger of leakage of radioactive material, con- > tamination of the crew, 'melt-down', etc? I am not very familiar > with the technology involved so if this is a stupid question, break > it to me gently. Thank you. > > --Peter Yes and no. If a reactor is damaged the ship will probably have been destroyed anyway so in military terms it's not a big problem. In terms of environmental pollution it's a _big_ problem. You've got the entire fuel contents of a fission reactor, the deadliest mixture of substances in the world, dumped straight into the sea with no treatment whatsoever. Of course if it comes to that it'll probably be in World War 3 so that might not end up mattering anyway :-) > [mod.note: I should think that fusion plants would, by and large, > be less dangerous when hit. If the reactor is hit, the worst that > could happen is the release of superheated heavy water steam [am I > correct to guess that said would be much less radioactive and toxic > than uranium compounds and reaction products from a fission plant ? ] > The described fusion plant can't melt down, that's a fission phenomenon. Absolutely. > On the other hand, it seems that it might be much more difficult to > repair a fusion plant at sea; at least, considering that the loss of, > say, an electrical switchboard or breaker panel could shut down the plant, > and it could be 10 hrs plus to get the reactor back on line. > - Bill ] Not more difficult to repair than a fission plant. It might be more difficult to repair than a diesel plant but you could probably build in enough modularity and redundancy (even to the extent of having two complete plants each one capable of powering the ship alone if the technology gets advanced enough) that it wouldn't matter that much. "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie